From the Journals

Risk-based mammography proposed for times of reduced capacity


 

Treat with caution

In an accompanying editorial, Sarah M. Friedewald, MD, and Dipti Gupta, MD, both from Northwestern University, Chicago, pointed out that, while the authors examined a large dataset to identify a subgroup of patients who would most likely benefit from breast imaging in a setting where capacity is limited, “these data should be used with caution as the only barometer for whether a patient merits cancer screening during a period of rationing.”

They noted that, in the context of an acute crisis, when patient volume needs to be reduced very quickly, it is often impractical for clinicians to sift through patient records in order to capture the information necessary for triage. In addition, asking nonclinical schedulers to accurately pull data at this level, at the time when the patient calls to make an appointment, is unrealistic.

In the context of the pandemic, the editorialists wrote that, while this model uses risk for breast cancer to prioritize those to be seen in the clinic, the risk for complications from COVID-19 may also be an important factor to consider. For example, an older patient may be at a higher risk for breast cancer but may also face a higher risk for COVID-related complications. Conversely, a younger woman at a lower risk for serious COVID-related disease but who has breast cancer detected early will gain more life-years than an older patient.

There are also no algorithms to account for each patient’s perceived risk for breast cancer or COVID-19, and “the downstream effect of delaying cancer diagnosis may similarly lead to unintended consequences but may take longer to become apparent,” they wrote. “Focusing efforts on the operations of accommodating as many patients as possible, such as extending clinic hours, would be preferable.”

Finally, Dr. Friedewald and Dr. Gupta concluded that “the practicality of this process during the COVID-19 pandemic and extrapolation to other emergent settings are less obvious.”

The study was supported through a Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute program award. Dr. Miglioretti reported receiving royalties from Elsevier outside the submitted work. Several coauthors report relationships with industry. Dr. Friedewald reported receiving grants from Hologic Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Locoregional surgery improves PFS in de novo stage IV breast cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
De-escalated radiation and endocrine therapy strategies in older women with breast cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: Breast Cancer March 2021
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
mCODE: Improving data sharing to enhance cancer care
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Don’t delay: Cancer patients need both doses of COVID vaccine
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
SNP chips deemed ‘extremely unreliable’ for identifying rare variants
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
FDA scrutinizes cancer therapies granted accelerated approval
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Most breast cancer screening centers not following guidelines
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Could tamoxifen dose be slashed down to 2.5 mg? 
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Huge, struggling breast cancer screening trial gets lifeline
MDedge Hematology and Oncology